Tandberg Border Controller / Gatekeeper

[Kirkedal]

I am trying to get a clear view of the pros/cons of having only one unit installet vs. both of them.
I tried searching and reading Tandbergs website, but that didn't get me much closer.
I am aware, that they have different capabilities, but I still think that maybe I could be without the Border Controller - any clever remarks, that could clarify it for me?
(I have several systems on the network, right now they are Sonys G70P and TL50P, but as we're an AV Systems Integrations company, we tend to get different systems on the network.)

[robertk]

I am trying to get a clear view of the pros/cons of having only one unit installet vs. both of them.
I tried searching and reading Tandbergs website, but that didn't get me much closer.
I am aware, that they have different capabilities, but I still think that maybe I could be without the Border Controller - any clever remarks, that could clarify it for me?
(I have several systems on the network, right now they are Sonys G70P and TL50P, but as we're an AV Systems Integrations company, we tend to get different systems on the network.)

If you can handle the traversal of your Firewall, then you don't need the BC.

But using a BC makes it soooo much easier and more secure then trying to get H.323 trough a firewall without it!

I would say that if you need to connect to other sites over internet or trough a firewall, the cost of the BC is not high, compared to the cost of getting a firewall to support H.323 calls as good as the BC.

//Robert

[BasicITOne]

The Tandberg BC and GK work together to provide FW traversal. If you have all MXP endpoints then you don't need the GK. Otherwise you need the GK inside your FW all endpoints register to this unit then you place the BC outside the FW and the only connection made is between the GK and the BC. All calls to and from the endpoints inside look (from FW point of view) as if they originated from inside the network. Only a few ports are used and only devices registered to trusted GK can make or receive calls (if configured this way).

The new VCS platform is a better choice same box loaded with different options and offers GK, H323 to SIP conversion (huge), and FindMe. If you ever had to share phonebooks then you will appreciate FindMe.

[robertk]

If you have all MXP endpoints then you don't need the GK.

That is not always a very bright thing to say.

There is a big difference how calls are handled if they are registered to a GK or directly with a BC. If you are registered to a BC, all calls are routed trough the BC-box itself. If you register to a GK only traversal calls goes trough the GK/BC.

So to say you can be without the GK if you only have MXP endpooints are not always the best solution. You have to take the network design and look at what the call-paths are before you can reccomend such a solution.

//Robert

[BasicITOne]

“It is not very bright thing to say”????? :ermm: The question of my brightness should not be part of a technical discussion. Sometimes when English is not the primary language words are used that don’t exactly fit the situation, so I understand.

Maybe what you meant to say is that a non GK solution doesn't fit in every network design. That is true and is not what I said.

I repeat - If you have only MXP endpoints [and if you don't require a GK for other purposes] then a BC is all you need for FW traversal. Please read what was posted and not infer other meanings from a very basic statement. If you are trying to push a GK when not required then you may do a disservice to the end-user.

PLEASE READ STRAIGHT FROM THE TANDBERG WEBSITE

Q: What components are required?
A: A TANDBERG Border Controller plus either a TANDBERG MXP endpoint or a TANDBERG Gatekeeper.

Read: not both in every circumstance.



That is not always a very bright thing to say.

There is a big difference how calls are handled if they are registered to a GK or directly with a BC. If you are registered to a BC, all calls are routed trough the BC-box itself. If you register to a GK only traversal calls goes trough the GK/BC.

So to say you can be without the GK if you only have MXP endpooints are not always the best solution. You have to take the network design and look at what the call-paths are before you can reccomend such a solution.

//Robert